EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. MANGIBEN SHANKARBHAI VASAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule.

(2.) On consideration of the rival submissions as also the impugned award and the order passed by this Court on 07.12.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 6212 of 2007 wherein the earlier award was assailed by the respondents workmen, it would transpire that in the said earlier award the Labour Court had directed the petitioner to provide the work to the workmen whenever available. During the challenge to the said order in the aforementioned Special Civil Application, this court recorded thus in para 11 to 17:

(3.) It would appear from the above quotation that in the Labour Court, 20 workmen who were serving at different places alleged their termination on 01.09.1990. The said aspect was doubted by the Labour Court and during the course of arguments in the aforementioned Special Civil Application, the principal question which fell for consideration of the Court was whether the workmen were engaged post 01.09.1990. The said contention was raised by the petitioner and was disputed by the respondents workmen. The Court also felt that in absence of resolution of such factual aspect and in absence of the said aspect being confronted to the workmen in their cross?examination, no full and effectual decision was rendered. The Court therefore stated and reiterated that the matter is remanded for consideration of the fact as to whether the workmen were engaged post 01.09.1990. Prima facie it appears that award in the said Special Civil Application was quashed only on the aforementioned ground and remand was also made for that limited purpose. Labour Court however has reviewed the entire award and has come to a different conclusion than what was recorded in the award impugned in the aforementioned Special Civil Application. Whether such course of action was permissible is the question to be decided in this petition. Prima facie, it appears that the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction. The impugned judgement and award is therefore required to be stayed. The same is therefore stayed subject to the condition that if the workmen are available, the petitioner will comply with Section 25H of the Industrial Disputed Act in the event of offer of the work by it to the similarly situated workmen. Direct service is permitted.